DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 06/05/2026. The previous objections to drawings and specification have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-13, and 16-22 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 22, the phrase “The system of Claim 11” in the preamble is understood to be a typographical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- The system of Claim 13 --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“product carrying unit” in claims 1, 7, 10-11, 13, 16, and 19-20.
“gas circulation assembly” in claims 13 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“product carrying unit” corresponds to “any suitable configuration, such a tray(s), an elongated trough(s), and/or an endless conveyor belt(s) having perforations, openings, apertures” as disclosed in paragraph [0031] of the specification.
“gas circulation assembly” corresponds to “a collection of suitable number of fans” as disclosed in paragraph [0037] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-13, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “overblown product” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “for redirecting air and overblown product” will be interpreted as -- for redirecting air and the overblown product --
Claim 9, the claim recites “to help separate product overblow from an air stream and direct the product overblow toward the overblow landing area” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Claim 1 discloses “a second deflector assembly for directing overblown product”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “product overblow” of claim 9 is referencing the previously disclosed “overblown product” of claim 1 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claims 13 and 20-22, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claims 13 and 20-22 indefinite because it is unclear what “substantially” is. This term renders the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “product” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a first deflector assembly configured to prevent product from leaving” will be interpreted as -- a first deflector assembly configured to prevent the product from leaving --
Claim 13 recites the limitation “overblown product” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “to redirect air and overblown product” will be interpreted as -- to redirect air and the overblown product --
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “to help separate product overblow from an air stream and direct the product overblow toward the overblow landing area” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 13 from which claim 18 depends. Claim 13 discloses “a second deflector assembly configured to substantially direct overblown product”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “product overblow” of claim 18 is referencing the previously disclosed “overblown product” of claim 13 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 20, the term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 20 indefinite because it is unclear what “generally away” is. Thus, as used to qualify the airflow direction, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claims 21-22, the claims recite “the tray side extender is offset from vertical” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vertical” is unclear because the specification does not clearly define the reference direction intended for purposes of determining the recited angular offset. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claims 21-22, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claims 21-22 indefinite because it is unclear what “about ten to twenty degrees” is. Thus, as used to qualify the angle formed between the tray side extender and the vertical direction, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 10-12, 16-17, and 19 are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fajerson et al. (WO2005073649A1, herein after referred to as Fajerson), in view of Chang et al. (US 20140069124 A1, herein after referred to as Chang), and in further view of Madden (US 20090306814 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fajerson teaches a product overblow management assembly (side walls 5 and partition 15 Fig. 1) for a gas treatment system (apparatus 1 Fig. 1) configured to treat a product (paragraph [0038]) by circulating treatment gas (disclosed “air” in paragraph [0046]) from a heat exchanger assembly (evaporators 16 Fig. 1) through a product carrying unit (conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1), the product overblow management assembly comprising: a first deflector assembly (side walls 5 Fig. 1) for a product treatment zone of the product carrying unit (trough 2 Fig. 1), wherein the first deflector assembly comprises: a first tray side (left side wall 5 Fig. 1) extending upwardly from a first side of the product carrying unit (left side of conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1), a second tray side (right side wall 5 Fig. 1) extending upwardly from a second side of the product carrying unit (right side of conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1) opposite the first tray side (Fig. 1); and a tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending from the second tray side (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson); and a second deflector assembly (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson); an overblow landing area (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) separate from the heat exchanger assembly (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson), wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a redirection plate (partition 15 Fig. 1) extending vertically downwardly from an interior upper surface of the gas treatment system (corresponds to the interior upper surface of apparatus 1 Fig. 1) for redirecting air (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fajerson teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first deflector assembly comprises the tray side extender extending upwardly from the second tray side towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit; wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a resistance guide assembly defined at a distal end of the tray side extender”.
However, Chang teaches a first deflector assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) comprises a tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) extending upwardly from a second tray side (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) towards a longitudinal center axis of a product carrying unit (corresponds to an axis parallel to arrow 15 Fig. 2 and passing through the center of conveyor belt 16’ Fig. 3); wherein a second deflector assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) comprises a resistance guide assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) defined at a distal end of the tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) to try to keep the product on the belt (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
1143
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Fajerson to include “the first deflector assembly comprises the tray side extender extending upwardly from the second tray side towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit; wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a resistance guide assembly defined at a distal end of the tray side extender” in view of the teachings of Chang to try to keep the product on the belt.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the second deflector assembly for directing overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area; the redirection plate for redirecting the overblown product flowing over the tray side extender downwardly toward the overblow landing area”.
However, Madden teaches a second deflector assembly (roof 44 and hood 45 Fig. 2 correspond to the second deflector assembly of Fajerson) for directing overblown product (fruit F Fig. 2 and paragraph [0026]) that has left a product treatment zone (rollers 20 Fig. 2 corresponds to the product treatment zone of Fajerson) into an overblow landing area (Fig. 2 where exit conveyor 50 corresponds to the overblown landing area of Fajerson); a redirection plate (hood 45 Fig. 2 corresponds to the redirection plate of Fajerson) for redirecting the overblown product flowing over a tray side extender (Fig. 2 where lip 47 corresponds to the tray side extender of Fajerson) downwardly toward the overblow landing area (Fig. 2) to remove unwanted product from the product carrying unit (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the second deflector assembly for directing overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area; the redirection plate for redirecting the overblown product flowing over the tray side extender downwardly toward the overblow landing area” in view of the teachings of Madden to remove unwanted product from the product carrying unit.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the resistance guide assembly configured to reduce air resistance as air flows up and over the distal end of the tray side extender”.
However, it is understood that claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configure to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 13, Fajerson teaches a gas treatment system (apparatus Fig. 1), comprising: a housing (housing of apparatus 1 Fig. 1); a heat exchanger assembly (evaporators 16 Fig. 1); a gas circulation assembly (fans 17 Fig. 1) for circulating treatment gas (disclosed “air” in paragraph [0046] and Fig. 1) within the housing (Fig. 1); a product carrying unit (conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1) configured to support a product (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 1) to be treated with the treatment gas (paragraph [0038]) circulated within the housing and upwardly through the product carrying unit (Fig. 1); and a product overblow management assembly (side walls 5 and partition 15 Fig. 1) comprising: a first deflector assembly (side walls 5 Fig. 1); a product treatment zone of the product carrying unit (trough 2 Fig. 1), wherein the first deflector assembly comprises: a first tray side (left side wall 5 Fig. 1) extending upwardly from a first side of the product carrying unit (left side of conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1), a second tray side (right side wall 5 Fig. 1) extending upwardly from a second side of the product carrying unit (right side of conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1) opposite the first tray side (Fig. 1); and a tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending from the second tray side (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson); and a second deflector assembly (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson); an overblow landing area (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) separate from the heat exchanger assembly (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson), wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a redirection plate (partition 15 Fig. 1) extending vertically downwardly from an interior upper surface of the gas treatment system (corresponds to the interior upper surface of apparatus 1 Fig. 1) that is configured to redirect air (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fajerson teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the first deflector assembly configured to prevent the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit, wherein the first deflector assembly comprises the tray side extender extending upwardly from the second tray side towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit; wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a resistance guide assembly defined at a distal end of the tray side extender”.
However, Chang teaches a first deflector assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) configured to prevent a product (the disclosed “particulate material” in paragraph [0037] corresponds to the product of Fajerson) from leaving a product treatment zone (paragraph [0037] where the space accommodating conveyor 16’ Fig. 3 corresponds to the product treatment zone of Fajerson) of a product carrying unit (conveyor 16’ Fig. 3 corresponds to the product carrying unit of Fajerson), wherein the first deflector assembly comprises a tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) extending upwardly from a second tray side (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit (corresponds to an axis parallel to arrow 15 Fig. 2 and passing through the center of conveyor 16’ Fig. 3); wherein a second deflector assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) comprises a resistance guide assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) defined at a distal end of the tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) to try to keep the product on the belt (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
1143
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Fajerson to include “the first deflector assembly configured to prevent the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit, wherein the first deflector assembly comprises the tray side extender extending upwardly from the second tray side towards a longitudinal center axis of the product carrying unit; wherein the second deflector assembly comprises a resistance guide assembly defined at a distal end of the tray side extender” in view of the teachings of Chang to try to keep the product on the belt.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the second deflector assembly configured to direct overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area, the redirection plate is configured to redirect the overblown product flowing over the tray side extender downwardly toward the overblow landing area”.
However, Madden teaches a second deflector assembly (roof 44 and hood 45 Fig. 2 correspond to the second deflector assembly of Fajerson) configured to direct overblown product (fruit F Fig. 2 and paragraph [0026]) that has left a product treatment zone (rollers 20 Fig. 2 corresponds to the product treatment zone of Fajerson) into an overblow landing area (Fig. 2 where exit conveyor 50 corresponds to the overblown landing area of Fajerson); a redirection plate (hood 45 Fig. 2 corresponds to the redirection plate of Fajerson) is configured to redirect the overblown product flowing over a tray side extender (Fig. 2 where lip 47 corresponds to the tray side extender of Fajerson) downwardly toward the overblow landing area (Fig. 2) to remove unwanted product from the product carrying unit (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the second deflector assembly configured to direct overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into the overblow landing area, the redirection plate is configured to redirect the overblown product flowing over the tray side extender downwardly toward the overblow landing area” in view of the teachings of Madden to remove unwanted product from the product carrying unit.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the resistance guide assembly configured to reduce air resistance as air flows up and over the distal end of the tray side extender”.
However, it is understood that claim 13 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configure to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein a distal end of the tray side extender (Fig. 3 of Chang) is located above the heat exchanger assembly (Fig. 3 of Chang where refrigeration unit 6 corresponds to the heat exchanger assembly of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the tray side extender is offset from a vertical axis of the first tray side (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) at an angle (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang).
PNG
media_image3.png
402
940
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
However, Chang does disclose an acute angle between the tray side extender and the vertical axis of the first tray side (see Fig. 3).
Thus, the disclosed “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an angle which is “between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a tray with plates extending away from the sides of the tray, was disclosed in the prior art by Chang, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the redirection plate is located half-way (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) between a horizontal location of the product carrying unit (location of conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and a horizontal location of the heat exchanger assembly (location of evaporators 16 Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the redirection plate extends downwardly from the interior upper surface of the gas treatment system (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) such that a vertical location (understood to be the location of the distal end of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) of a distal tip of the redirection plate (distal end of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) is located above a top surface of the heat exchanger assembly (top surface of evaporators 16 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and below an upper end of the first deflector assembly (Fig. 2 of Madden where the distal end of hood 45 is located below lip 47).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a velocity of air flowing adjacent to the redirection plate increases as it passes over a distal tip of the redirection plate to help separate product overblow from an air stream and direct the product overblow toward the overblow landing area”.
However, Applicant discloses in paragraphs [0060] and [0061] of the specification that “the air flows downwardly along the length of the redirection plate144 until it reaches the distal end of the redirection plate 144. When the air reaches the distal end of the redirection plate 144, the air flow direction changes, turning approximately ninety degrees (90°) towards the heat exchanger assembly114. As the air flow direction changes, the velocity of the air flowing adjacent to and/or close to the redirection plate 144 increases”. In other words, the change in direction of the airflow at the edge of the plate results in an increased air velocity near the plate. Therefore, given the location of partition plate 15 relative to the airflow and the change of direction experienced by the airflow (Fig. 15) disclosed in Fajerson are substantially similar to that in instant claims 9 and 18, it is the Examiner's position that partition plate 15 taught by Fajerson would inherently have the instantly claimed function of “wherein a velocity of air flowing adjacent to the redirection plate increases as it passes over a distal tip of the redirection plate to help separate product overblow from an air stream and direct the product overblow toward the overblow landing area”. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish a nonobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, According to Bernoulli principle, the velocity of a fluid such as air will increase when the fluid is moving from a higher pressure zone to a lower pressure one. Referring to Fig. 1 of Fajerson, compartment 3 experiences a higher pressure than space 13 since the suction ends of fans 17 are located in space 13. Therefore, the velocity of airflow F near partition plate 15 Fig. 1 will increase when the air is moving from compartment 3 to space 13.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the overblow landing area is defined between the product carrying unit and the heat exchanger assembly (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the product treatment zone includes an area (corresponds to the area that accommodates bottom surface 4 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) in which a product bed (bottom surface 4 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) forms and an area (portion of compartment 3 located above trough 2 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) extending upwardly from the product bed (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the redirection plate extends downwardly from the interior upper surface of the housing (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) such that a vertical location (understood to be the location of the distal end of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) of a distal tip of the redirection plate (distal end of partition 15 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) is located above a top surface of the heat exchanger assembly (top surface of evaporators 16 Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and below an upper end of the first deflector assembly (Fig. 2 of Madden where the distal end of hood 45 is located below lip 47).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the gas circulation assembly is located below the product carrying unit (Fig. 1 of Fajerson) and between the heat exchanger assembly and the product carrying unit (Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
Regarding claim 20, Fajerson teaches a method of managing product overblow (the method described in paragraph [0032]) for a gas treatment system (apparatus 1 Fig. 1) configured to treat a product (corresponds to the products disclosed in paragraph [0038]) by circulating treatment gas (disclosed “air” in paragraph [0046]) from a heat exchanger assembly (evaporators 16 Fig. 1) through a product carrying unit (conveyor belt 6 Fig. 1), the method comprising: circulating the treatment gas from a heat exchanger (evaporator 16 Fig. 1) toward the product carrying unit (Fig. 1); a product treatment zone of the product carrying unit (trough 2 Fig. 1); directing air upwardly away from the product treatment zone (Fig. 1) and away from the heat exchanger assembly (Fig. 1); and an overblow landing area (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson) separate from the heat exchanger assembly (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Fajerson).
PNG
media_image4.png
520
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fajerson teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprising preventing the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit”.
However, Chang teaches a method (the method described in paragraph [0050] corresponds to the method of Fajerson) comprising preventing a product (the disclosed “particulate material” in paragraph [0037] corresponds to the product of Fajerson) from leaving a product treatment zone (paragraph [0037] where the space accommodating conveyor 16’ Fig. 3 corresponds to the product treatment zone of Fajerson) of a product carrying unit (conveyor 16’ corresponds to the product carrying unit of Fajerson) to allow the product to be fluidized (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Fajerson to include “the method comprising preventing the product from leaving the product treatment zone of the product carrying unit” in view of the teachings of Chang to allow the product to be fluidized.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprises directing overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into an overblow landing area”.
However, Madden teaches a method (the method described in paragraph [0026] corresponds to the method of Fajerson) comprises directing overblown product (fruit F Fig. 2 and paragraph [0026]) that has left a product treatment zone (rollers 20 Fig. 2 corresponds to the product treatment zone of Fajerson) into an overblow landing area (Fig. 2 where exit conveyor 50 corresponds to the overblown landing area of Fajerson) to remove unwanted product from the product carrying unit (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method comprises directing overblown product that has left the product treatment zone into an overblow landing area” in view of the teachings of Madden to remove unwanted product from the product carrying unit.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprising minimizing air flow resistance as the air flows toward the heat exchanger assembly”.
However, Applicant discloses in paragraph [0056] of the specification that “the overblow landing assembly includes a resistance guide139 defined at the top end of the second tray side extender138 to help reduce resistance of air flowing up and over the top end of the second tray side extender138, as shown in by the air flow velocity area160 in FIG. 6. The resistance guide139 may be a generally curved configuration to guide air up and over the top of the second tray side extender 138 as it travels toward the heat exchanger assembly 114.”. In other words, a resistance guide with a curved shaped defined at the top end of the second tray side would reduce the resistance of the air flowing up and over the top end of the second tray side extender. Therefore, given that the location and shape of the resistance guide disclosed in the method of Chang are substantially similar to that of the Applicant in the disclosure, it is the Examiner's position that the method taught by Chang would inherently include “the method comprising minimizing air flow resistance as the air flows toward the heat exchanger assembly”. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish a nonobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fajerson in view Chang and Madden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Overbye (US 4177647).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a bypass assembly configured to be selectively opened to adjust treatment gas velocity through the product carrying unit”.
However, Overbye teaches further comprising a bypass assembly (adjustable dampers 26 Fig. 1) configured to be selectively opened (Col. 5 lines 50-68 and Col. 6 lines 1-14) to adjust treatment gas velocity (disclosed “flow of pressurized freezing air” Col. 5 lines 50-68 where it is understood that the velocity of a fluid is directly proportional to its volumetric flow rate) through a product carrying unit (conveyance deck 10 Fig. 2 corresponds to the product carrying unit of Fajerson) to permit the system to operate with full evaporator heat exchange efficiency while discharging air at the optimum rate (Col. 6 lines 1-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising a bypass assembly configured to be selectively opened to adjust treatment gas velocity through the product carrying unit” in view of the teachings of Overbye to permit the system to operate with full evaporator heat exchange efficiency while discharging air at the optimum rate.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fajerson in view of Chang and Madden as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Rui (CN202501691U).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach wherein the tray side extender is offset from vertical at an angle (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang).
PNG
media_image5.png
552
885
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the tray side extender is longer than the first tray side”.
However, Rui teaches wherein a tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Rui) is longer than a first tray side (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Rui) to improve air supply power and enhance the fluidization quick-freezing effect (paragraph [03]).
PNG
media_image6.png
680
655
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the tray side extender is longer than the first tray side” in view of the teachings of Rui to improve air supply power and enhance the fluidization quick-freezing effect.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
However, Chang does disclose an acute angle between the tray side extender and the vertical axis of the first tray side (see Fig. 3).
Thus, the disclosed “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an angle which is “between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a tray with plates extending away from the sides of the tray, was disclosed in the prior art by Chang, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach wherein a distal end of the tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang) is located above the heat exchanger assembly (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang), and wherein the tray side extender is offset from vertical at an angle (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Chang).
PNG
media_image7.png
504
727
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the tray side extender is longer than the first tray side”.
However, Rui teaches a tray side extender (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Rui) is longer than a first tray side (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Rui) to improve air supply power and enhance the fluidization quick-freezing effect (paragraph [03]).
PNG
media_image6.png
680
655
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the tray side extender is longer than the first tray side” in view of the teachings of Rui to improve air supply power and enhance the fluidization quick-freezing effect.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
However, Chang does disclose an acute angle between the tray side extender and the vertical axis of the first tray side (see Fig. 3).
Thus, the disclosed “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an angle which is “between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a tray with plates extending away from the sides of the tray, was disclosed in the prior art by Chang, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the angle is between ten to twenty degrees (10-20°)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights